Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 3

Research papers assessing Gab's users and content
Greetings fellow Wikipedians,

I have found three pieces of research papers on Arxiv: Excerpts from their conclusions:
 * Inside the Right-Leaning Echo Chambers: Characterizing Gab, an Unmoderated Social System
 * What is Gab? A Bastion of Free Speech or an Alt-Right Echo Chamber?
 * A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism
 * Gab is a very politically oriented system that hosts known banned users from other social networks.
 * The majority of Gab users are conservative, male, and Caucasian. Gab is also crowded by extremist users.
 * Posts indicate that, while users support free speech, a small part of the posts not only mirror political views but incorporate hate speech.
 * Gab has become an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination.
 * Hate speech is extensively present on the platform, as we find that 5.4% of the posts include hate words. This is 2.4 times higher than on Twitter, but 2.2 times lower than on 4chan’s Politically Incorrect board (/pol/)
 * Gab reacts very strongly to real-world events focused around white nationalism and support of Donald Trump.
 * There are several accounts making coordinated efforts towards recruiting millennials to the alt-right.
 * We find that, while Gab claims to be all about free speech, this seems to be merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide.
 * the term “kike” shows the greatest increase in use for both /pol/ and Gab, followed by “jew” on /pol/ and “nigger” on Gab.

These findings should be reflected in the lead and in the article. From these findings, I support the inclusion of the word "far-right" in the lead, although phrasing are needed to reflect these findings correctly. Please check these papers out. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It says right there that the "majority" of Gab Users are "conservative" (and not "far right"), which is an argument in favor of using the word "conservative". It also describes the content as "right-leaning" and not "far right".  Even the titles of the source material describe Gab as "Right-Leaning" and "Alt-Right (Echo Chamber) -OR- "Bastion of Free Speech" and "Unmoderated Social System" (which are both ideologically neutral).  And the phrase (crowded by) "extremist users" leaves the political orientation undefined (as there are "left wing" extremists).  It also implies that 95.6% of Gab posts are "hate word free", if anyone wants to buy-in to the idea that words can be described in terms of their "hatefulness".  I don't.  I think the whole idea of censoring language because an politically and ideologically biased non-profit corporation (ADL, SPLC, etc...) says it is, is abhorrent, is patent censorship, and Wikipedia is "not censored", so I reject the whole idea of using the number of "hate words" in order to assess whether or not Gab is "far right", "conservative" or any other adjective describing it's political ideology.  2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article 'What is Gab? A Bastion of Free Speech or an Alt-Right Echo Chamber?' written by an international group and sponsored by a European grant continually calls Gab alt-right, noting the prevalence of the AltRight hashtag on the network, and noting the most followed people on the network are famous alt-right individuals. This is the clearest source I've seen yet which describes the users on the network. SportingFlyer  talk  03:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not support the inclusion of "far-right" in the lead. To start, there is no agreed definition or objective standard for deciding what is and is not "far right" or "alt right." Secondly, the article SportingFlyer points to, in particular, doesn't conclude that Gab is an alt-right site. Or at least we shouldn't draw that conclusion from it. Its quantitative conclusions are that "hate words" appear on gab at a rate roughly twice as often as they do on Twitter and roughly half as often as they do on 4Chan, specifically 5.4% of posts.
 * Does that really allow us to label the site an "alt-right" website, considering 94.6% of posts on Gab don't, quantitatively, contain the extremist language the study measured - and that the same language also appears on Twitter? I don't think it does. Might it be better to say "alt-right posts are more common on Gab than some social media platforms."? Ginjuice4445 (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can a description of the "users on the network" be fairly applied to the network (platform, website, etc...) itself? Is the character of the platform determined only by the political orientation of it's Users?  And is the dominant political orientation of a social media platform the very first thing an encyclopedia should mention?  It makes more sense to me to say that Gab is a Free Speech platform that just happens to be predominantly "right", than it does to say that Gab is a right-wing platform that just happens to be "Free Speech"?  Interested to read what you and others have to say.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur. You should register so you're not plastering your IP all over the Internet. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead proposal
I've updated more contents as I read through more. The research papers clearly suggests that Gab's self-purport of "free speech" is an excuse for its alt-right users to hide. Prevalence of hate speech compared to Twitter supports this. (Is 5.7% too low for you?). Alt-right, consisting of neo-nazis, white supremacists and anti-semites, all members of far-right, can be defined as far-right. I said inclusion and phrasing are needed, not directly stating it's far-right. The lead needs to accurately and comprehensively summarize the article. Contents of above papers needs to be added to the article too. I propose the following as lead:


 * Gab is a social network service based in the US, known for its prominent presence of far-right users. It allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 300 characters, called "gabs", which users may cast upvotes or downvotes.
 * Created after a preceived "left-leaning Big Social monopoly" by its CEO Andrew Torba in 2016, the site advertises itself as an alternative of Twitter and supporting "free speech", harboring known banned users from other social networks. It has since became an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination, with hate speech extensvely present on the platform. Gab's users are predominantly white, conservative male. Its most followed users almost entirely comprised of far-right individuals.
 * The site is widely described as a "safe haven" for Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and members of the alt-right. One paper suggests that its claim of "free speech" are "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide". The site gained extensive public scrutiny since the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, due to its prepetrator posted conpiracy theory on his active, verified Gab account just prior to the shooting.

--Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "The research papers clearly suggests that Gab's self-purport of "free speech" is an excuse for its alt-right users to hide."
 * This statement seems paranoid and conspiratorial. I've already interpreted most of your source material in another "Talk" section, the primary point being that you choose to ignore the 95% of Gab's Members that engage in "acceptable" speech, and want to make the entire article about the 5% of the Users whose speech has been deemed unacceptable.  You also seem to be ignoring a question that I asked (in that other Section) about whether or not it was fair to characterize the entirety of neutral, free speech platform because 5% of it's members have speech that some find objectionable.  I will continue to assert that Gab is an "empty vessel" (or whatever other metaphor people may prefer, such as "conduit"), and while the speech of some of it's Users is certainly noteworthy and should be included in the Article, those Users are a small minority, until consensus is achieved on this question.  Gab is a corporation that provides a service, the Article is about Gab, and not just about a small minority of it's Users, no matter how extreme or offensive their speech might be.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "This statement seems paranoid and conspiratorial." - I don't know if it seems that way or not (have you actually looked at it? That is an understatement) but if that's what reliable sources say, it's what we go with.  Volunteer Marek   19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This "paranoid" and "conspiratorial" statement is from a quantitative study of real gab posts. If the alt-right like facts, they should love this. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not support. Excessive editorializing. My proposal for the lede is below. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also it might be pertinent to acknowledge that twitter and facebook have a "hate speech" percentage of 3-4% of posts. 2601:982:4200:A6C:D13F:6087:A1B7:A816 (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Empty vessel? Small Minority? When Gab's most followed individuals are almost entirely comprised of alt-right figureheads and Neo-Nazi fascists? How is it possible that a mere minority of users promoted these individuals to most influential status on Gab? You are ignoring this important facet. Also are you suggesting that only if a person's speech are entirely 100% hate words can it be counted as a far-right individual? Last time I checked a post containing "Cultural Marxism" - an alt-right conspiracy hoax claiming communist infiltration in public institutions - is among its popular post of the day. How many more evidences does is take to declare that Gab is, a de facto platform for far-right discourse? Since a platform is an "empty vessel", it shall be defined by its users. Can we at least assess a platform in its current form? Tsumikiria (T/C) 18:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Twitter is actively combating hate speech, targeted harassment and spam, and encourages users to identify and report such. This is an effort. An effort never shown on Gab. This is supported by the high percentage of hate words and concentration of alt-right users. Have you seen any mainstream celebrity, writer, actor, creator on Gab? I haven't. Only persons like Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones. Tsumikiria (T/C) 18:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the structure of your thinking, and your characterization of Twitter's policies as an "effort", but differ with your conclusion. Not only can Twitter's "efforts" be characterized as censorship, Gab's absence of those efforts is best characterized as Free Speech.  Gab's "efforts" at speech regulation mirrors, to the greatest extent possible, only those restrictions imposed by law (Child Porn, threats of violence, etc...), with some (at least one) exception, with regard to porn.  Gab's ToS requires the use of a "NSFW" (Not Safe For Work) tag on posts that contain porn (and possibly other objectionable material, such as scat, snuff, etc...), which then allows Users that have their NSFW filter enabled to not be able to see those posts.  This policy evolved after some time due to a significant number of complaints from people that did not want to be "forced" to view these types images by having them appear in their "feed" (not the correct term, but it's the equivalent of Twitter's).  I mention all of this to illustrate that the "censorship vs. free speech" aspect of Gab's identity is not dichotomous, "either/or", but is more of a continuous spectrum with "shades of grey".  Rather than attempting to prevent it's Users from making speech that offends others (like Twitter's censorship), Gab attempts to provide tools to it's Users that allows them to shield offensive speech from their awareness (such as a "mute button"), and only coercively restricting that speech (censorship) when the Law requires it.  Which, overall puts Gab solidly in the "Free Speech" side of the equation.  It might look like "censorship" to some, but it's not, is my point.  Even long-time, regular Users on Gab make the mistake of assuming that because they've "muted" an account, they have somehow "deleted" account's that speech. It's still visible to everyone, except them. It's a very nuanced distinction that some people have a lot of trouble with.


 * Your use of the phrase "high percentage of hate words": First and again, I call into question whether or not the ADL/SPLC's method of measuring the quality of "hate" is a valid standard that Wikipedia blindly adopts, and adheres to, particularly given the fact that both of these organization are politically biased. Within that system of measurement, Gab's "Hate words" are 5 point-something percentage compared to Twitters 2 point-something. The word "higher" is valid when comparing this stat to Twitter, but the obverse of your statistic is that Gab's speech is 95% hate-word free (if you think it's fair, and valid to "block" the minimum unit of measure of Gab's speech into posts, vs. breaking it down to the smallest possible unit of "words".  For clarity, this "hate word metric" makes the fundamental (and I would say misleading assumption) that if a post (or a Tweet) has 30 words, and one of those words is a "hate word", statistically all 30 of that post's words are are factored into the "hate".  Finally, I am compelled to mention that some people, in some cultures, use words that would be considered a "hate word" (such as the "n-word" as a term of endearment, or familiarity, or a friendly jibe.  There is a double-standard with regard to the use of some "hate words", and this "hate word metric" fails to take that into account, and lumps all "friendly" use of hate words into the same category of "hate speech", which will then artificially inflate the stats.  My primary point being that these words do not mean what you think they mean, for all of the reasons (and probably some more) that I've just mentioned.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

De-platforming alt-right, neo-Nazi and harassers simply means the platform considers them a danger for the rest of their users, their reputation, and revenue. This is corporate freedom, which the conservatives absolutely loved. It also may be considered as a public responsibility. Reliable sources already established that Gab's is using the word "free speech" to draw attention, attract and protect/hide members of the alt-right. There should be no dispute on this. Wikipedia is established through reliable sources, not first-party claims.

95% of the post being so called "hate word free" does not mean they're free from antisemitism and far-right ideologies. This is a misleading defense on your part. This higher occurence is certainly notable. It can be plainly phrased like "Ethnic terms and slurs against jews and people of color is comparably more prevalent on Gab than Twitter, but still at lower occurrence than /pol/. (here goes statistics)"

Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How does any of that "improve the Article"? People are saying bad things that you don't like somewhere, and not even the ADL/SPLC can find it or stop it.  Now what?Tym Whittier (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

clvindiana (T Using the words is vague and citing only a few weak sources.

Protected edit request on 30 October 2018
Minor change: Remove the spaces in between the references in the first paragraph, especially after "and members of the alt-right." where about 10 references are provided with spaces in between them. Acebulf (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Mz7 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Reducing protection?
A request has been made on my user talk page to reduce the protection level on this article to semi-protection, which would allow most registered users to edit the article again. I originally protected the article because there was a content dispute causing many reverts from multiple users. Most of those users seem to be participating on this talk page now. Can I trust that the article won't descend into a series of back-and-forth reverts if I reduce the protection level a few days early? Mz7 (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would go with "extended confirmed"; please see above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't trust it, and keep it protected the full number of days. Lots of newish contributors here. SportingFlyer  talk  01:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Which I think the ECP would resolve. Also pinging . --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with SportingFlyer. There haven't been many edit requests which suggests no urgent issues. If readers need the latest developments they can read the Washington Post. D.Creish (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I use Wikipedia because I trust it to present the facts without the hard-core left-wing bias of media like the "Washington Post". It's not Wikipedia's mission, but I'd be willing to bet a significant number of people come here for this reason.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support reduction to extended confirmed There are quite a few suggested ameliorations that are unaddressed, most of them without the edit request tag. I reckon that going to a lower level would allow experienced editors to help sort it out while avoiding a shitshow. The page can always be re-protected if this happens to be untrue. Acebulf (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'm inclined to give extended confirmed a try as a middle-ground solution. The hope is that this will allow small improvements to go through while the more controversial ones that may be liable to edit-warring remain under discussion. Mz7 (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for second paragraph of lede
Current version: Proposed change: Open to tweaks being made and additional references being put in the relevant places, of course. I think the NPR reference gives the subject really fair treatment. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gab has been widely described as a "safe haven" for Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and members of the alt-right.[9] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Gab describes itself as "a social network that champions free speech, individual liberty and the free flow of information online." [18][10][19][20][21][22]
 * Gab's moderation policies, which impose few restrictions on speech, have resulted in users who "feel their views are stifled by mainstream sites like Twitter and Facebook" (reference) to migrate from those platforms to Gab. Gab has accordingly been described as both providing a platform for free speech and as being a "gathering point for far right users."


 * Gab has no Moderators, and no "moderation policies". It has Terms of Service and that's it, full stop.  Gab is not "moderated" in the traditional, online sense of the word.  If someone reports a post, it is reviewed by an "invisible someone", and the only action taken is an account deletion, what is commonly called (on Gab) a "ban".  Please see my comments on "bans" in another Section.


 * But Gab will straight-up report you to the FBI if you cross the line, and do something patently, clearly illegal, like threaten the life of the President, etc... Most of their regulatory policies are centered on the idea of "clarity", meaning phrases like "Gas the k***s" is acceptable, but posting the full and correct name of an IRL person, and other information, coupled with a direct threat, will result in an immediate report to Law Enforcement.  Many Users are very active in this regard.  It's one way of getting rid of someone you don't like.  "Moderation" implies that there's "grey area"; that "mushy middle", where people are warned, threatened, temporarily punished, etc... and there isn't any of that on Gab.  You're either "in", or you are "out", with no in-between.


 * I'd be interested in seeing the source that connects the word "moderation" with "Gab". FWIW, I have no problem with the "safe haven" text; I just don't think that's the very first thing that needs to be mentioned in the Lede.  That's where I see the bias, and not in the text itself.  It's, to a great extent true.  Another "type" of Gab User is the straight-up, hard-core, 100% unrepentent troll.  They're not actually "Nazis", or "White Supremacists", or anything other than people who like to find out what offends the community the most, and they then adopt the role (or "LARP") as if that's who they are.  Trolls are very real, and there are a lot of them on Gab.  So if someone has an "ax to grind" and wants to compile a list of all the offensive and terrible people you might find on Gab, "trolls" are a significant demographic worth mentioning, and it would be totally appropriate to mention them, along with all the other deplorables.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No. Your rewrite removes any mention of  Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, which are extensively covered in the sources and are one of the main reasons the site is notable. --Aquillion (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Per MOS:LEAD Lead should be a concise and conprehensive overview of the article. Like why the article is notable. Descriptions of far-right presence on the site should absolutely be included in the lead. Important facts should not be omitted, else this would be whitewashing. The tragedy should be included too. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They are mentioned. Final sentence. "Gab has accordingly been described as both providing a platform for free speech and as being a 'gathering point for far right users.'" Adding ten different flavors of "far right" as Aquillion proposed adds nothing to the article and violates WP:WEASEL. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, loading the Lede down with information about a small minority of Gab User's, and ignoring the larger and more of a fundamental issues of a small Social Media Platform doing battle with "Big Tech", you indicate to the Reader that the Article will be all about the Nazis, lions, tigers and bears, oh my, which does not "invite the Reader" to read any further. It's easy to find online content that roundly condemns Gab for all it's evil qualities; people come to Wikipedia for an encyclopedic perspective, and not more of the same. As you yourself stated, it should be a "comprehensive overview", and not seize on one lurid detail, beat it to death, and act like there's nothing left to say about Gab. I've challenged you on several different issues regarding "hate speech", percentages, etc... and thus far you've ignored them.  Also "articles" are not "noteable".  Gab is what's notable, and not it's "Article".  The Lede does not indicate what's notable about the Article, it indicates what's interesting about the topic (Gab) in order to invite the reader to "continue reading".  Authoritarian condemnation and self-righteous moralizing does not make the Lede more "inviting".  And yes, this is my new, registered account.  Tym Whittier (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of outside canvassing
The official account of Gab.com (@getongab) has retweeted this post to its 150,000 followers:

The tweet displays the preview of Gab's Wikipedia page:.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * They can paint themselves as victim and blame Wikipedia's "liberal bias" all they want. That reminds me that we should add Conservapedia to the see also section. They're birds of a feather. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note the image (of Wikipedia's Lede) in the tweet is hidden behind the following message:
 * "This media may contain sensitive material. Your media settings are configured to warn you when media may be sensitive."
 * Would the "average person" consider an image of the Lede of this Article "sensitive material" that needs to be hidden? Just something for people to consider before substantively engaging in the "Gab vs. Twitter", "censorship vs. free speech" discussions here.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strawman, irrelevant discussion. Sensitive material means many users has reported the user in question. This is part of twitter's quality filter. Stop painting things unders misleading light.Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What you've just done is introduced the idea that content is censored on Twitter, not just by a standard applied to the content, but also because the person that posted it has been reported by others. So, not just the content on Twitter censored, but the people are too.  That doesn't happen on Gab, because Gab supports Free Speech, and is against censorship (just like Wikipedia).Tym Whittier (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, but this is because our goal is to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a platform for unrestricted free speech and content which interferes with that goal can be removed. This includes offensive material. Twitter and Gab are both social network sites, but Wikipedia is explicitly not a social network by policy. Unless reliable sources discuss Twitter's weird "sensitive material" algorithm as it relates to Gab, this is a distraction, at best. Grayfell (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Not based in Philadelphia
The article currently says that Gab is based in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia Inquirer contradicts this, stating that "[a] Gab spokesperson wrote in an email that the company is no longer based in Philadelphia". TypoBoy (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have edited the "History" section to reflect this. I'll edit the infobox and categories too. TypoBoy (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Bias against the company
This page is an entire insult to it. Half the sources have been handpicked with an obvious bias that plays around reality, all they do is try to smear the site by smearing its users. People from all walks of life are on gag, but that doesn't matter to the obvious snakes and liars who have molded this page.

Someone please correct this injustice. 154.124.163.118 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC) I concur. This article is very one-sided; recent edits I made in order to bring it back to WP:NPOV were immediately reverted to ones that were wholly critical of Gab the company. There are obviously hundreds of thousands of Gab users who are not all evil; if the critiques are going to be in this article, WP:NPOV requires that so should be the free speech angle that the company has consistently stated in all of its public statements, which directly contradict the "alt-right" narrative, as well as many of its users, the vast majority of whom appear not to be "alt-right." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginjuice4445 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There were many problems with your edits, and the raw quantity of citations was not the main problem.
 * Your edits contained excessive editorializing and selective use of sources used as citations for opinions not directly supported by those sources. This is WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Further, many of those sources were questionable reliability. The use of a controversial opinion would have to be clearly attributed in the article before being crammed into the lede. Additionally, Wikipedia is not interested in "both sides" style false balance. If reliable sources say that this site is primarily known for it's far-right userbase, than the article will also reflect this. Hunting around for sources which might tangentially mention other users is cherry-picking. Discuss changes here before restoring this content. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's do this statement by statement:
 * "Gab is known for its moderation policy, which differs from comparable services such as Twitter and Facebook in that "as long as... speech is protected by the First Amendment and is lawful it remains"... this is obviously true, and extremely relevant. Literally the only reason anybody knows about Gab is this moderation policy. Everything discussed in this article, alt-right or otherwise, is a consequence of that moderation policy. The fact that people are able to call it an "alt-right" platform is because the policy exists which allows users to exercise first amendment rights in a manner that is not permitted on other platforms like Twitter or Facebook. The fact that Gab is continually censored by companies like Apple or Google which do not share that policy is newsworthy and cited throughout. I offered a Yahoo News article in direct support of this statement. You say it's "cherry picking," but it in fact summarizes why we are all here.
 * "with proponents describing Gab as a bastion of free speech among increasingly censorial competitor platforms"... I fail to understand how including this viewpoint violates neutrality or detracts from the discussion. The entire point of the Gab website, the very fact that it is relevant, is derived from the fact that it has positioned itself as an alternative to "Big Tech" and the moderation that "Big Tech" companies employ. Furthermore, I provided cites from the Washington Times, Verge, and Quillette in support of this proposition. If you wish, we can split out the gab-specific articles from the articles pointing out that Big Tech censorship is taking place, but all that requires is a little additional drafting for that sentence rather than a blanket undo for the entire edit.
 * "detractors saying it is an alt-right website"... your language currently states that "Gab has been described as an alt-right website." Not by everyone, not uniformly, not even as a consensus position. By detractors of the company, as a read of any of those links will show. Other sources praise the company or take a neutral point of view, such as a number of the references I have cited to. You can't just ignore those on the grounds that it's a "false balance." That assumes the viewpoint you propose is the only reasonable viewpoint out there, which it clearly isn't.
 * "Although prominent right-wing voices were among some of the site's earliest users, Gab claims that it seeks a diverse userbase" ... both true statements, which are relevant to understanding why the site's free speech bent attracted alt-righters and also directly contradicting the article's current content that the site "has been described as a site for the alt-right." The site has literally disclaimed its status as an alt-right platform and I can find no evidence of the site embracing that categorization. The only people who call the site a haven of the alt-right are people who dislike that the site permits the alt-right to operate on it, as a read of your sources shows. But Gab itself has done and said nothing to indicate that the alt-right is its intended clientele. If you're going to include the allegation you have to include the denial - this is like writing that a certain SCOTUS nominee committed an assault on his Wikipedia entry, simply because he was accused of it.
 * tl;dr, the "Gab is for the altright" is a disputed point. It's a label given by people to Gab who would prefer Gab kicked the alt-right off of its site rather than allowing anyone to operate on it. It is a point of view not shared, presumably, by the half-million users who use Gab or the folks who have written the articles that describe it as a free speech site first and foremost, several of which I have cited to. With that in mind, you don't get to blanket impose your viewpoint instead of describing the controversy. This is especially true when virtually every single citation in the entire article references, directly or indirectly, some element of that controversy, with the grand theme being the tug-of-war between free speech and moderation and how people react to Gab adhering to the free speech side of that equation unswervingly.
 * The assertions are well-sourced, supported by WP:NPOV, add valuable context in terms of WP:Notability and I think accomplish that in an unbiased way. Check your own biases at the door. I'm restoring the content and if you feel the need to undo it I'll be escalating this to an admin. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

There are some fairly major WP:DUE issues with the sources used by to paint a picture not supported by majority of reliable sources - it strikes a false balance by using less reliable (e.g. Quillette) sources & cherrypicked quotes from reliable sources where a more holistic approach would not represent the issue in these words. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement which the article currently uses, and my edit replaced - "Gab has been described as a platform for the altright" - is a half-truth. The other half of the discussion is represented by statements from the company itself and independent sources, which I cite to extensively and discuss the hate speech issue in detail without labelling the site as a platform for the altright.
 * The writers of those articles express an understanding that adopting a free speech policy will allow the altright to operate on the site with impunity. Your failure to embrace the other side of the controversy in the introduction to this article is extremely misleading, particularly when both sides of the controversy (free speech vs. moderation) are referenced extensively throughout. You're basically misleading your reader into thinking that the pro-moderation forces are right, that Gab's policies are motivated by bias rather than free speech absolutism, and that there are no alternative explanations for the presence of fringe elements on Gab's site.
 * The "holistic approach" is what my edit did. It explained why the fringe elements are there (they are there due to the moderation policy, having been booted off other platforms) rather than smearing the entire site as racist, as you propose to do. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Framing the favorable content as "neutral", and negative content as coming from "detractors" is misrepresenting a personal opinion as an objective fact. We do not pretend that if one side is significant, the "other side" must also have a place at the table. Who get's to decide where the lines between "sides" is drawn? Why only two sides, and not more, or less? It's subjective, and it's up to sources to determine these things, not editors.
 * Finding convenient sources to frame this as a tug-of-war between free speech moderation is specifically inappropriate here, because among other things, it's simplistic. Calling the site controversial is empty and obvious. It tells readers nothing, even if it is the "grand theme" of sources. We weigh sources based on their reliability and summarize accordingly, we don't try and balance sources based on our own assessment of their ideology. For one thing, we are not impartial when determining that ideology. For another, having an ideology doesn't make a source less correct.
 * We are not interesting in Gab's public relations, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising. If the site's PR people claim the site has a diverse userbase, the significance of that claim would still require context from reliable sources. It's obvious from even a superficial glance at the site what the bulk if its content is, and it's perfectly compatible with the alt-right, but this is something that needs to be explained according to reliable source. They do explain this, over and over again. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: 1, then say "proponents and detractors." But let's not pretend the detractors aren't detractors. I read the articles. If you want to see a NPOV then look to the BBC link I link below.
 * Re: 2 What's this now, Washington Times, Newsweek, Ars Technica, Mic (media company) and Gizmodo aren't good, reliable sources for tech journalism? Since when? The sources are there, I did the research and found them. It's wildly inappropriate to dismiss them for no other reason than the fact that you don't like their conclusions. Incidentally, the "free speech vs moderation" angle is the exact angle which arguably the best, most objective source in the world, the BBC, took with regard to Gab (link). I'm not making this stuff up.
 * Re: 3, "obvious from even a superficial glance"... evidence? There are 500,000 users of the site. You really think all of them are alt-right? And you really think that a third party source quoting the company isn't relevant or worthy of inclusion? Are we not allowed to describe the company's own view of its own product on this page, especially where that view conforms with the "free speech" half of the sources and provides important context to the controversy surrounding this company? If so, I might suggest you go over to Facebook's page and tell them to pull all the quotes from Mark Zuckerberg or any Facebook employee that are all over the page. But you aren't doing that, are you.
 * To be frank, I think you're bringing your personal biases to the table here and are unable to see that this article does a disservice to anyone reading it. If you're that confident in your claims, accept mediation and we'll see whether the mediators agree with you. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are doing a bad job of summarizing those sources, even if some of them are reliable
 * I could get into why each of these sources is being misrepresented, or why grouping "detractors" together isn't neutral, but in order for that to be productive, you must understand the baseline problem with this approach. As I already explained, the raw quantity of sources isn't the problem. Did you not read that the first time? To put it simply, do not use an opinion source to present an opinion as fact. Do not use a source to imply something that is not explicitly stated. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are a bad faith actor, Grayfell, as both this talk page and your edits show. If you had any interest in actually reaching consensus you'd engage with the sources and suggest new language. All you're doing instead is blanking my and others' contributions. It is a pity you are unwilling to acquiesce to third party moderation, as this would reveal that my and others' contributions to this page are perfectly valid and your repeated blanking of those contributions, and inability to constructively engage with facts that run contrary to the narrative you want to promote, is old-fashioned, run of the mill bias. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You've been trying to change the article for less than a day. Did you think consensus was quick and easy? I mean... sometimes it is, but convenience isn't the priority.
 * Per WP:Mediation: The role of the mediator is to facilitate consensus-building discussion, not to arbitrate or adjudicate disputes or issue binding decisions. This means you, also, have to discuss your edits in order to reach consensus. Mediation is not the Wikipedia police. If you want to report my behavior, there are other forums for this, such as WP:ANI. You're going to have to explain exactly how my behavior is inappropriate, however, and going around posting to different forums without a very good reason is going to boomerang on you as forum shopping.
 * Assuming good faith doesn't mean ignoring bad edits. It means exactly what's happening here on the talk page. Discussion to reach consensus. Your edits have serious problems which you have not addressed. Further, it seems that you do not understand what these problems are, or have decided that these problems don't matter. Consensus doesn't mean that you get to decide what the article says.
 * Like I said, I would be willing to discuss each of these sources, but only if the underlying problems are acknowledged, first. Grayfell (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see that there are underlying problems, particularly with the most recent edit link to diff which was pared down from the first edit earlier today, which addressed any possible editorializing and tried to stick to the facts... and which you, once again, blanked. Blanking is not collaborative or consensus-building. Blanking isn't proposing changes to the language or asking for specific clarifications on specific citations, all of which were and are directly on point, especially the most recent set of changes I proposed (which you, lest you have forgotten, blanked). Blanking is edit warring and WP:Stonewalling. It's a total inability to see things from the perspective of the editor who is presenting you with new information that directly contradicts what you want to see in the article. And it's what makes you a very poor editor of this encyclopedia. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's talk about that edit. This source was a submission to a conference. It is not (yet) a properly published academic citation and should not be used without attribution, but let's look at it anyway. The summary includes this line: We analyzed 22M posts from 336K users, finding that Gab attracts the interest of users ranging from alt-right supporters and conspiracy theorists to trolls. Is that something you would like to include in the lede of the article? If so, we first need to explain this information in the body. The Verge source doesn't mention Gab at all as far as I can see, making it's use in the article WP:SYNTH. Is it mentioned in the Google paper? If so, that's a WP:PRIMARY source which has additional problems. It goes on like this. Instead of trying to tweak these unusable edits, the burden is on you to gain consensus for your proposed changes, and in order for that to happen, you have to understand what we are telling you about Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Re: the paper, that's one citation out of five. What it says is that the incidence of right-wingers is about 2% higher than that on Twitter etc. so I'd be happy to see that in the lede. If that is your only substantial objection to my edit, I would recommend undoing your edit, restoring my changes and I will offer this BBC piece as an alternative citation. As for the Verge piece, this refers explicitly to the content moderation policies of Google, Facebook and Twitter. Although the powerpoint presentation the Verge piece refers to does discuss Gab, the citation is not offered to prove a point about Gab, it's offered to verify a data point about the moderation policies of those other companies. We can demonstrate Gab does not have those moderation policies with the links from the Washington Times and Gizmodo which are provided later in the sentence. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What? My only substantial... did you read all of my comment? It wasn't that long. As I've said multiple times, there are many problems here.
 * Again, the "paper" is a submission, not a published study, and it shouldn't be used without attribution. That means we would need a specific reason, based on reliable sources, to provide the name of Savvas Zannettou of the Cyprus Institute of Technology in the article. What reliable source mentions this study? What does that source say about this study? That's what would be needed to use this source.
 * I do not see any place where the source says there are 2% more "right wingers" than on twitter. I do see where it says the use of hate words is 2.2 times higher than Twitter. This doesn't even matter, though. Digging through an obscure, unpublished study to try and find a single data-point which supports your perspective, while ignoring the summary of that study by the study's authors, is the definition of cherry-picking. No dice.
 * As I said, there are many problems with these edits. Too many to expect a simple fix, and too many for this to be an improvement to the article.
 * A source which doesn't mention Gab should not be used for an article about Gab. Using a source to support your own research about Gab is WP:OR, which is not allowed. This isn't the place to research information about Twitter or Facebook's censorship. This is the place to summarize reliable sources about Gab.
 * Again, there were many problems. Synthing up a summary of the site's lack of moderation to make a point about other site's censorship, or to justify why the site's userbase isn't really alt-right, would be original research in service of a specific agenda.
 * This is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: the percentages, your comment that " What it says is that the incidence of right-wingers is about 2% higher than that on Twitter etc. so I'd be happy to see that in the lede," it's in the journal article if you'd care to read it. "Hate speech is extensively present on the platform, as we find that 5.4% of the posts include hate words. This is 2.4 times higher than on Twitter, but 2.2 times lower than on 4chan’s Politically Incorrect board (/pol/)." That means that roughly 2.25% of the posts on Twitter include those words, and would lead to the conclusion that the incidence of those types of post on Gab make up, as a proportion of total posts, an additional 2.15% of the content on the site.
 * If you really don't like the journal article, I am not that attached to it and would be happy to pull the word "alternative," and the citation, completely. In the alternative I have the BBC link I mentioned above which can be offered in support of the same assertion, but again you aren't interested in dealing with new information as much as you are in preventing any changes from being made to this article. Re: Verge, if you would allow the language, which of course you won't, I'll do the research and find a solid supporting citation that includes Gab, or redraft the sentence to e.g. "Gab follows a moderation policy X. This is different from Company A and B which follow moderation policy Y." This helps explain why Gab is important and why indeed anyone is on this page talking about it.
 * Summing up, I proposed adding maybe 25 words to this article, tops, in an effort to make this article provide a neutral treatment to the subject matter, not "in service of a specific agenda." My agenda is accurate treatment of this subject. I have provided plenty of citations from reliable sources in several different ways in an attempt to appease you, who are WP:Stonewalling any modifications to the article whatsoever. What's inappropriate here is your refusal to accept changes to an article you've been camped out on for a long time because of your own personal biases, and your total inability to identify specific criticisms in response to my attempts to elicit them.
 * Waving your arms around frantically with unspecified claims that my edits violated this wikipedia policy or that one is a poor substitute for having an interest in dealing with and incorporating well-sourced information which directly contradicts the main thrust of this article as it stands today. I am not "Synthing up a summary of the site's lack of moderation to make a point about other site's censorship." I'm explaining why Gab is controversial. This subject is dealt with extensively by every other citation I included with the new language, but previous attempts to quote from those sources directly resulted in the erasure of my contributions on the basis that - in your words - "Wikipedia is not interested in 'both sides' style false balance", and the reversion to the (painfully incorrect) version of the article that we have before us now. The fact is, you just don't want to include new sources or information that contradict your views. This article is of poor quality because of you. Shame on you. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The number of posts containing hate words is not the same as the number of users! Unless, of course, each user only ever made a single post. Also, why are you assuming that all uses of hate words indicate "right-wingers" and none of the non-hate word users are right wing? If you made a mistake, fine. If you do not understand the study, don't cite it.
 * The lede of the article already states that Gab promotes itself as a free speech platform. It's in the first paragraph, before even the alt-right stuff. Nowhere does the article claim that every single user is alt-right, or that Gab was actively designed to be alt-right exclusive. The flip-side of free speech is that a platform which doesn't control its users also doesn't get to control what other people say about it. When reliable sources look at Gab (which isn't very often) they find that it's dominated by the far-right and conspiracy theorists who actively drive away more moderate users. If Torba didn't want this to happen, he done fucked up, didn't he?
 * You keep mentioning a BBC article from 2016 as an alternative, but this is backwards. What is it an alternative to? You should not adding information you personally know or believe and then go looking for sources which support your prior assumptions. We should find reliable sources and summarize them. Further, we don't just cite the headline, we cite the substance of the article. The article is very clear that Gab is very, very popular with the alt-right ("It's become the go-to social network for an extreme group of activists who have been chucked off of Twitter", "...the fact that Gab has offered asylum to the alt-right refugees from Twitter who have washed up on its shores...", "He says the site will continue to attract more of the same types of users - conservatives and alt-right activists", etc.) I have never seen a source which claims that all users of the site are alt-right, and that's obviously incorrect... but according to reliable sources, most of them are on the right-leaning fringes. As the BBC points out, Twitter has vastly more significant users and a vastly larger audience, so why wouldn't someone just use that site?
 * In the BBC article, Torba is frequently quotes, but he does a tepid job of defending the site's reputation. He mentions some other users, but he never indicates why those users cannot also be alt-right. As an example, he is implying that one cannot be a Hindu philosopher and also far-right, but this is demonstrably false, and he is not qualified to make this claim anyway. Even the BBC article puts "diverse users" in quotes, suggesting that the BBC isn't willing to except this as straightforward.
 * Torba's opinion would need to be presented as his opinion, and only with a specific reason. Cheryl K. Chumley of The Washington Times might write an opinion about "why the ideological right can’t create an Internet-based community of its own" but who gets to summarize that opinion, and why exactly, does that opinion belong in the lede of the article?
 * Believe it or not, I actually do have some knowledge about how Wikipedia works. If you want to fixate on my behavior as a villain, instead of trying to understand what I'm saying, you might get to feel smug about the situation, but the article isn't going to improve, and you might get blocked for personal insults. Grayfell (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't help but agree with most editors here - especially the early edits by Ginjuice4445 are poorly sourced, riddled with original research and rely on very thin claims to make sweeping statements. The open hostility of the editor shows no willingness to work towards a consensus and frankly completely turned me off.   Ravensfire  (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, finding it hard to see how my sources are poorly sourced when they're all mainstream newspapers or tech publications. I have made minimal changes to the text and merged the two paragraphs in order to prevent the article from conveying the misleading impression that the site is uniformly regarded as alt-right. These are all solid sources so if you're going to challenge them, please explain one by one and get consensus before you revert. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with, and I would revert the most recently sourced revisions to the last version edited by Greyfell. The current revisions move the page away from WP:NPOV. SportingFlyer  talk  02:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As multiple editors have now tried to explain, the problem is not the quantity of sources, it's how they are misrepresented to convey a specific, promotional perspective. I cannot understand why this is confusing to you. If you don't understand with what any of us are saying, ask new questions instead of demanding even more answers to questions we've already tried to address. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to revert the changes but it looks like I messed something up, I apologise. Looks like I don't understand how to revert several revisions using the "undo" feature. SportingFlyer  talk  07:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are using the web version: from the page's history, select the revision you want to restore and click "cur" on the left-hand side. This will produce a diff spanning to the current revision, like this one. From there, 'undo' should work. I haven't figured it out on the mobile site or the apps. Grayfell (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and done the revert. You shouldn't feel the need to apologise - personally, it took me ages to figure out how. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to try reaching consensus on this the usual way. Suggest closing this discussion. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The article isn't an insult to Gab.com so much as an insult to Wikipedia and any pretense of Neutral Point Of View. Gab.com does not describe itself as far-right. We should say that some media has described it as such, not that it is far-right as a settled fact. In Wikipedia's defense, our reliable sources are no longer very objective, so naturally when we use them as our source of truth, the truth gets skewed. But there are other reliable sources that disagree. Gab.com does not itself have a point of view, although its users do tend to come from the Right, as those are the ones whom the Left is censoring. Fnordware (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the bulk, and the intent of your statement, with exactly one caveat. Gab DOES have the "point of view" of supporting Free Speech, and that POV is consistent between what Gab says about itself and how Gab actually operates IRL.  The problem is that the Media is participating in the conflict, vs. simply reporting it, so finding "reliable sources" is going to be difficult to find in order to accurately report the truth of things.  And, to further complicate the situation, attempting to adhere as close as possible to "the truth" (that's under-reported by the Media) is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's policies, which must be maintained. We're attempting to build, or upgrade, a neutral, encyclopedic Article using sources that are, for the most part, the exact opposite of that.  And yet, that is what we must do because use of Original Research and the consensus of the personal opinions of a handful of Editors is unacceptable, and prohibited.  Given the tension between these two dynamics ("Truth" vs. "Wikipedia Policy"), everyone involved is going to have to compromise in order to work together.  Adherence and compliance with Wikipedia's Policies is going to have to be done with full awareness that the source material is less than optimal.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant it has no point of view on the Left-Right political spectrum, which is (theoretically) orthogonal to free speech. But yes, as the news media more and more chooses sides it's going to be more difficult to maintain NPOV on Wikipedia because anyone from a particular side can get a skewed reliable source. The solution has to be to sample from both types of media and represent both sides. It's a sad state of journalism, but it means Wikipedia's NPOV is more crucial now than ever before. Fnordware (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2018
Add an image of the notice on the home page of Gab.com that the site is down. Dirk Strauss (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Presently I don't know what to do with this. This is clearly full of delusional far-right rhetorics and I think we might be accidentally endorsing this if we include it in the article. I would be cautious. I guess no. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No per WP:NOTNEWS. Also a likely copyright violation. SportingFlyer  talk  08:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We include things in the article if those things are notable, full stop. We have an article about Hitler, does that mean we endorse Hitler? The image of Gab being shut down would be fine to post, it has been mentioned in sources and including it would be fair use. Fnordware (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The image has been deleted from the Wikimedia Commons because the Commons does not accept fair use images. As it was just an image of text, I would suggest we could also just include quoted material from the notice if we wish to include it all. Mz7 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

GAB user numbers
It says that GAB has 215,000 users on this page, I've found an article claiming 225,000 from August 18 http://fortune.com/2017/08/18/uncensored-social-network-gab-raises-1-million-in-crowdfunding-campaign/. Is there any way of finding out what the numbers are today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.16.91 (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Mr Torba has posted today that Gab has close to 650,000 users, I can only link his account rather than the actual comment, my ineptitude to blame no doubt. It seems that it's time to update the numbers once more if someone less useless than I would be so kind. Tapirium (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

As of late October, the membership count was about 800,000 users, just before the synagogue shooter incident and the co-ordinated attack by BigTech to shut down an entire city because of the actions of a single citizen -- actions that were DENOUNCED by Andrew and virtually every other citizen of the Gab city. Think about that -- nobody called for the same shut down of Twitter or Facebook BOTH of which this shooter had an account. 142.229.115.111 (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind your problem is not with Wikipedia. If the "reliable sources" (meaning the mass media) fail to publish something you think is important, then there's nothing for a Wikipedia Editor to use.  However, it should not be difficult to find a reliable source that reported Gab's Membership, and coincidentally while reading the "Reception" section of the Article, I was just thinking that including that number might add some balance.Tym Whittier (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank You
I just wanted to thank everyone here who pushed for this article to reclaim its Neutral Point of View. I also want to thank anyone who was pushing their sincerely held beliefs, but were willing to compromise and give equal weight to different perspectives. I imagine everyone here is aware that most of today's news media has little interest in neutrality. People (including me) love to hear their own beliefs repeated back to them, so the media is supplying slanted content to cater to that desire in their search for ratings/clicks. This means most of our reliable sources are no longer neutral, so we can't just get one source and assume that NPOV will be maintained. The only solution I can see is that we have to always get several sources from different perspectives and represent them all in our articles. On one hand it is a sad time for journalism, but on the other hand it makes NPOV in Wikipedia more important now than ever before. Fnordware (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not "there" yet, IMO. Better, but not "there".Tym Whittier (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If by "there" you mean we have to erase any mention of white supremacist membership and state up front that Gab is a completely innocent angel of free speech human rights etc, please, no. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 October 2018
GoDaddy says Gab violated their TOS and is forcing them to find another provider. This is a notable development and should be reflected.

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056708683130781696?s=20 Mbierman 05:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The correct term for this action is "domain name seizure", and this has been done by Registrars in the past, to both the website Stormfront [|Stormfront], as well as The Daily Stormer[|The Daily Stormer]. Law Enforcement also "seizes" domain names, but I don't know if these are considered the same kind of seizures (seizure by a Registrar vs. seizure by Law Enforcement). I'd like to identify the correct/precise language to use for domain name loss/seizure, and apply it to this Article.  At this time, Gab.com has a single message page (meaning not functional), but isitupordown.com says gab.com is still "up".  Point being, it's not quite "down" yet.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: The relevant, sourced information has already been mentioned in the article. Please gain consensus for any further changes. Grayfell (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Article neutrality
Obvious Liberal Bias & Smear Campaign vs Gab Throughout Article. The whole page is rife with smear campaign tactics and strawman arguments to portray Gab as some sort of neo-nazi hate platform just because a TINY percentage of the user base is "alt-right". By that logic Google and Twitter should also be labeled as such because they also have tiny percentages of such users. The whole article has SERIOUS author bias and POV issues! The page needs to be redone with a more NEUTRAL POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6C00:2950:E8E9:6089:F035:75FA (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC) — 2601:1c0:6c00:2950:e8e9:6089:f035:75fa (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Stop deleting content from the Talk page
There is far too much deleting of other people's comments on this Talk page. Removing Talk content should be very rare, and only done for one of the specific reasons mentioned in WP:TALKO. I have never seen editors with so much disregard for Wikipedia guidelines. Fnordware (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Other people's comments aren't being "deleted." Talk page sections here are automatically archived by an archive bot after a period of inactivity. You can find older discussions by clicking the archive link at the top of the page. Fluous (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One, two, three, four, five. Fnordware (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "EXTREME leftist bias & propaganda to smear Gab throughout entire article"

Source. I believe the above falls under WP:NOTAFORUM. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He does veer a little into soapbox mode toward the end, but also has commentary about improving the article. This is the talk page, not the article. We should only delete when we have to. Fnordware (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I failed to see how any of these edit make contributive additions, especially this one, which is entirely personal analysis and a soapbox speech from the beginning. Delete per WP:NOTAFORUM. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI, WP:NOTAFORUM applies to articles, not Talk pages. Refer to WP:TALKO. Fnordware (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, and either one will work. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course the same standards that apply to articles to not apply to the Talk page. Talk pages do have guidelines, but as long as the discussion is about improving the article, keep it. Even when someone has broken the rules, their content should be collapsed, not deleted. WP:TALKO Fnordware (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)